Smut.

That’s all I could think when reading Brooke Carter’s article about oral sex. What benefits did your readers get out of reading that article?

Was it a tasteful analysis of the Esquire article, about how it relates to college age students? Nah. It was mostly Carter recalling her last oral sex performance. The Maneater paid someone to tell sex stories in print.

I don’t understand what any editor at The Maneater was thinking when they allowed this to be published. How was this a good idea at all? It’s tasteless. I thought the MOVE was supposed to provide arts news for readers. Not be a low-grade Penthouse. It was a dumb move on your part, Maneater.

Now, I don’t think this “article” appeared in print, but I wonder how Schnucks feels about seeing their advertisement side by side Carter’s work on your website. Do they think that’s money well spent?

And the worst part was the cliche “*Names included in this anonymous column have been changed to protect the guilty.” Really funny. No, wait. Never mind. The smut was still the worst part. The cliche is just a close second.

Barbara Johnson

jbarbara72@gmail.com